DUI Resources

Checkmarks

About Us

Checkpoints is your one stop for useful and unusual DUI news from across the country. We're part of the Total DUI network, a free resource for anyone wanting information on DUI laws, arrests and everything else. We want you to protect you. This means knowing the laws, and, as we'll show you, it also means knowing what not to do.

The content found on the Checkpoints DUI Blog is not legal advice and is purely for informational purposes. TotalDUI, LLC. does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of submissions. The information provided by the bloggers on this site may not represent the opinions of the site editor(s), Total DUI, Inc. or its affiliates. The information contained herein is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. For additional disclaimers, please visit our Terms & Conditions.

In South Dakota, there is a legal loophole in DUI court cases that may be enabling those arrested for DUI to get off the hook for offenses that might otherwise be punishable, according to an article in the Rapid City Journal.

The situations are somewhat exceptional, dealing with those arrested for DUI multiple times within a very short period of time. In these so-called DUI clusters, one case might still be left open and without a conviction entered on the record when another DUI arrest occurs with the same person.

Because of constitutional presumption of an innocence, a person may be facing two charges of a first DUI at the same time, and not have to deal with the escalated consequences of multiple offenses.

Take the case of 53-year-old Barbara Van Ekeren. She was arrested for DUI for the first time on May 1, 2009. She pled guilty, and was given a suspended imposition of sentence that July. Her file remained open, and the conviction did not appear on her record.

She got arrested for DUI again soon after that, in November. She was charged with first offense DUI for that arrest as well. Then, in February, she was arrested again. She was able to plead guilty to second offense DUI for both of these arrests, rather than pleading guilty to third offense DUI.

She served 15 days in jail, as per the judge’s order, for these second offense pleas. The loophole occurred because the DUI arrests were so close together. These clustered DUIs enable some of the worst DUI offenders to avoid felony convictions.

According to the president of the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lila Doud, Van Ekeren is getting a freebie for one of the DUIs by avoiding the third offense conviction. She has publically voiced her frustration about the law, and told the Rapid City Journal that this sort of freebie DUI situation occurs frequently.

Doud blames the law’s systematic treatment of DUI for their ability to leave with the lesser sentence in the cases.

“When they’re not sentenced on their first one and end up getting the second, they’ve got a freebie,” she said.

According to prosecutors, they are limited by the constitutional presumption of innocence. MADD officials as well as state leaders agree that there should be something done to be tougher on these repeat offenders, but that it’s not a simple fix. The legal system’s methodical nature make change slow to come and difficult to finalize.

Currently causing the loophole is the law that DUI offenses can’t be escalated to the next level until the defendant has pleaded guilty or has been found guilty, the Pennington County State’s Attorney Glenn Brenner said. “But in order to get a third offense, you have to have two prior convictions and in order to get a fourth offense, it’s not good enough to have three prior convictions. You have to have a third offense felony DUI before you can enhance to a fourth offense.”

At the root of the issue is the presumption of innocence. Cases can’t be escalated without a conviction, and these can take months, even while repeat offenders with alcohol addictions pile up DUI arrests.

“We need to get them through the system faster,” said Doud.

South Dakota extensively combats DUI with billboard campaigns and police presence, and Rapid City police chief Steve Allender believes that there are fewer drunk drivers on the road now. “Every day and night, we are looking for the drunk driver,” he said.

An Ohio man was convicted of his twenty-first DUI recently, and with a dramatic statement a judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, representing the maximum term possible in the case.

Forty-five-year old Kevin J. Ante did not comment as the Butler County judge handed him the sentence in Common Pleas Court. According to authorities, they initially knew of 17 of Ante’s DUI offenses. Recently, however, they uncovered four more DUI convictions on his extensive record.

Even Ante’s lawyer, David S. Washington Jr., was surprised at this development. Whatever the final count, Washington agreed, it was far too many DUI convictions.

Ante was only recently released from prison on the same charges of drunk driving. He served a four year sentence, and was picked up for his latest DUI only 90 days after his release.

According to police, Ante even attempted to evade arrest when he was stopped on December 3, 2009. He got about a quarter mile away before they were able to pull him over. Police quickly smelled alcohol and realized that Ante was confused or unresponsive, according to WKRC in Cincinnati, and he was arrested for DUI.

The judge in this latest case, Judge Michael Sage, said that he had never seen such a case in 20 years as a judge and 30 years as a lawyer. Judge Sage made reference to the 2005 DUI that landed Ante the four year sentence.

“You served every day of that,” Sage said as he made his ruling. “I struggle with cases like this,” he continued, “because, in my mind, alcoholism is a disease.” Sage noted, however, that Ante did not use his previous time in prison to address his problems with alcohol.

In making his decision to enforce the maximum sentence, Sage said that he was protecting the public. “You are a ticking time bomb waiting to kill somebody,” he told Ante.

Ante’s 21 drunk driving convictions stem all the way back to his first one in 1982.

PAID ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT: THIS WEB SITE IS A GROUP ADVERTISEMENT AND THE PARTICIPATING
ATTORNEYS ARE INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY PAY AN ADVERTISING FEE. It is not a lawyer referral service or prepaid legal services plan. Total DUI is not a law firm. Total DUI does not endorse or recommend any lawyer or law firm who participates in the network. It does not make any representation and has not made any judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating lawyer. The information contained herein is not legal advice. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be
performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by
other lawyers. Any information you submit to Total DUI may not be protected by attorney-client privilege. All photos are of models and do not depict clients. All case evaluations are performed by participating attorneys. An attorney responsible for the content of this Site is Kevin W. Chern, Esq., licensed in Illinois with offices at 25 East Washington, Suite 510, Chicago, Illinois 60602. To see the attorney in your area who is responsible for this advertisement, please click here or call 866-200-8052.
If you live in Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, New York or Wyoming, please click here for additional information.
The content found on this blog is not legal advice and is purely for informational purposes. Total DUI does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of submissions. The information provided by the bloggers on this site may not represent the opinions of the site editor(s), Total DUI or its affiliates. The information contained herein is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. For additional disclaimers, please visit our Terms & Conditions